Moolla Yusuf, Adam Ahmed, Perera Marlon, Lawrentschuk Nathan
Department of Oncology, Klerksdorp Hospital, Klerksdorp/Tshepong Hospital Complex, Klerksdorp, North West Province.
Department of Urology, Helen Joseph Hospital & Department of Paediatric Urology, Rahima Moosa Mother & Child (Coronation) Hospital, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Curr Urol. 2020 Jan;13(4):200-208. doi: 10.1159/000499271. Epub 2020 Jan 7.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'.
Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net.
33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%).
Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
背景/目的:在当今信息时代,患者常常通过互联网寻求健康相关信息。我们评估了互联网上有关“前列腺癌”信息的可靠性和有效性。
于2017年6月在谷歌网站上使用搜索词“前列腺癌”。运用《美国医学会杂志》基准、DISCERN评分、健康网标准对前100个搜索结果进行批判性分析。
返回33500000个搜索结果。对前100个结果进行了批判性分析。排除了10个链接[重复链接(n = 7)、书评(n = 1)、失效网站(n = 2)],因此共分析了90个。评估的子类别包括:商业(53.33%)、大学/医疗中心(24.44%)、政府(13.33%);非政府/非营利组织(8.89%)。评估的信息内容子类型包括:事实性(74.44%)、临床试验(18.89%);故事(5.56%);问答(1.11%)。被评为具有健康网认证标志阳性的网站(14.44%)或标志阴性的网站(85.56%)。基于《美国医学会杂志》基准的网站内容:0项基准(4.44%)、1项基准(16.67%)、2项基准(34.44%)、3项基准(27.78%)、4项基准(16.67%)。DISCERN评分结果为:“低”分(16 - 32分)= 12个网站(13.33%)、“中等”分(33 - 64分)= 68个网站(75.56%)、“高”分(≥65分)= 10个网站(11.11%)。
对互联网上“前列腺癌"信息的批判性评估表明,总体质量较为准确,然而大多数单个网站本身作为患者的信息来源并不可靠。医生和患者在从互联网获取前列腺癌信息时需要意识到这种“质量与数量”的差异。